This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sailing ship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Any takers for a History entry here? Was doing some research for the technology page and no joy . . . When did we learn to sail?
Rossfi 00:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
In the current article, the first picture shows a sailing boat, the second shows a ship, but it's under auxillary power (not anchored, check the bow wake). Both of these should be replaced with ships under sail.-- J Clear 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Oy. Both photos are not ships. They are yachts. The bottom one is a ketch. We need a picture of an actual ship, as in a ship as opposed to a yacht, a ship as opposed to a sloop of war, a ship as opposed to a schooner, a ship of the line. There are various definitions of "ship." I think we should get an unambiguous ship picture. I have a photo I took of the Lady Washington drifting in a calm, but it is a pretty minimal "ship" and it would be nice to get a ship actually sailing. Something like that painting of the Cutty Sark with all its stunsails out. I'm worried about the tackling drawing. I saw it a few weeks ago in a book, and I can't swear it was out of copyright. I also found this here picture, but the sails are droopy. Mrees1997 19:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I cut the two yachts out and put in this picture: . Mrees1997 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added a mergeto tag to Sailboat pointing to here. Actually I'm not terribly bothered which way it moves, just my POV that it should go this direction. At least this article is part of a template. The two articles are quite different but I don't think we need both. Its very similar territory and there is no great differentiation between the 2 concepts. Opinions and suggestions please ? Frelke 07:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
No Merge, These articles could be edited better in conjunction to separate out the various points which should be in either place. Though the definitions can get a touch muddy, there are generally accepted differences between boats and ships.
Crocadillion 19:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Take a minute to read the comments at Talk:Sailing#Re-write effort -- non how-to et seq. Some of us are working on re-organizing the sailing-related articles. See if you agree with our approach and give us some help. Mrees1997 20:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It is requested that a vehicle diagram or diagrams be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the
Graphic Lab. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. |
This appears to be the master article for this template:
It would benefit from a diagram showing the various parts listed in the template. Image:Tackling.png has on the order of a hundred elements listed, but has no legend. -- Beland 02:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason not to give this article a more appropriate name? "Sailing vessel," perhaps? Sure, "sailing ship" has more Google hits, but as soon as you get into serious discussion of sailing vessels and rigs, calling things ships which are not ships is just confusing. I would indeed suggest that sailing ship redirect to this article, and not to full rigged ship, because most people searching that term are probably looking for this information. But that's no reason to assail them with muddy terminology.
I don't like the title "Sailing vessel" either, since we'd be arbitrarily excluding small boats, pleasure craft, ice boats, etc. But I can't think of a better name, perhaps because I don't actually know what this article is about. Large sailing vessels? Traditional sailing vessels? Merchant/military/working sailing vessels? The history of non-recreational sailing? Western sailing vessels of the Age of Sail and their replicas? Yes, I'm nitpicking, but I do think we should spell out the exact purpose of this article, both to figure out a possible new title and to more clearly differentiate it from sailboat. -- Fullobeans ( talk) 20:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
JUNK is defined as a lug-rigged sailing vessel.
LUGGER is defined as a vessel with at least two masts carrying lug-sails.
What is that? Nowhere is LUG-SAIL defined or described. Lug rigging is not in the sail-plan diagrams either, though those were very informative. A link to the description in another article might be the way to go. 98.200.150.6 ( talk) 14:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I happened upon this page and was reading through it when I came upon a very confusing phrase at the end of the introduction:
"Large sailing vessels that are not ship rigged may be more appropriately called boats."
I am not familiar with the subject, but the phrase "ship rigged" cause me a great deal of confusion. I went back over the introduction again and found no reference, implication, or definition that would aid in interpreting the author's meaning. Possibly it is a typo, in which case it needs correction. It could be a true statement in which case their needs to be an explanation of what it means, either earlier in the text or right at that point. In either case my knowledge of the subject is inadequate and someone else who is better informed should make the changes. Thank you to anyone who corrects this. Sonzaisuru ( talk) 22:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
(This discussion is transcluded at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sailing and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships User:HopsonRoad 10:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC))
I added
caïque here yesterday, which was reverted as the "article says it is a boat, not a ship".
That's fair enough, but the list also has entries for
Longship,
Lugger,
Luzzu,
Tjotter,
Koch (boat),
Yacht and
a Polynesian outrigger canoe. They are all about the same size, they all have sail plans, and they are all described interchangeably as boats, ships, or simply vessels.
So, are we in need of some criteria for inclusion here? The term “ship” is notoriously imprecise; what should be in, and what out?
Moonraker12 (
talk) 16:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I propose to bring the substance of Windjammer here, because "Windjammer" is a colloquialism, not a class of ship, as is discussed at Talk:Windjammer. I further feel that it would improve this fairly sketchy article. HopsonRoad ( talk) 13:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I can see your level of disappointment, Broichmore, and I am prepared to mitigate any problems that I may have created, subject to input from other editors. I don't have an axe to grind, regarding the title. However, other editors pointed out ( here and here) that the term, "windjammer", applies to just about any kind of sailing ship. In the US state of Maine, windjammers are commonly thought of as schooners. The term came about, not as a way to distinguish a type of ship, but as a perjorative term, like "jalopy", applicable to the ships that still were under sail in the age of steam and extended to those who were consigned to sail them. Therefore, it seemed that the material describing windjammers was best provided at "sailing ship".
The ships described in the Windjammer article were, as far as I could see, iron (and steel) hulled. In looking at the literature for ships of the size described here, I didn't find any examples of wooden or composite ships, just a preponderance of iron ships; that's how I came to conclude that material in this article could stand on its own.
Regarding the state of Project Ships, I agree that it's in relatively good shape. It's actually articles having to do with sailing that have many warning templates about references and are poorly written. You can see from my user page that I have rewritten some of them.
As to a resolution, we should follow up on your concern that I was editing against consensus (although I believe that I was editing, consistent with consensus) by leaving an invitation at the Talk pages of editors that have shown an interest in this and related topics, inviting them to the conversation. (You were the only one to respond from my posting at Project Ships.) I plan to do that for our discussion at Talk:Sailing ship#Scope?, which I'll leave an example of at your Talk page. Perhaps you could undertake the same, regarding the article in question (now Iron-hulled sailing ship). If the consensus results in a different outcome, I'm happy to help implement it. I hope that we can leave you satisfied with the outcome, even if it doesn't conform to one or the other of our thought processes. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 12:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Update: I have provided a place to reconsider the title change in question at: Talk:Iron-hulled sailing ship#Reconsider? for you to direct further discussion to. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 15:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Another issue is scope. Is this article primarily about western sailing ships? To what extent should it include junks and dhows? Are they large enough to be considered "ships"? Clearly, at one point they were among the larger vessels sailing in their regions. They should have at least brief mention, here. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 13:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Here's a possible outline:
Sincerely, HopsonRoad ( talk) 02:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
References
Does anybody know how the Gleitschienenrack and Tonnenrack a called in english... Greetings-- Mr.Lovecraft ( talk) 16:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Where did we get the information on a ship gender identity and how do we know it’s not male? Seems like a lot of sexism here with all these female ships. 50.76.14.241 ( talk) 23:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
This is an aide-mémoire for some of the problems with this article, but is also here so that others can comment.
(1) The History section dives straight in to talking about the Age of Discovery without making clear that this is within the European tradition of maritime technology.
(2) History, subsection Before 1700:
"Initially sails provided supplementary power to ships with oars, because the sails were not designed to sail to windward."
Beyond being unreferenced, this is utter nonsense. Sail has been a prime method of propulsion of ships and boats since about 3000 BC. There is clear archaeological and written evidence of this. Even galleys (which are a special case) would use sail whenever possible.
As for the "sails not designed to go to windward" – to be fair to the editor who wrote this, many academics have made this assumption, without any evidence to support it – but more recently this is pretty much refuted by research such as Julian Whitewright (2011) The Potential Performance of Ancient Mediterranean Sailing Rigs, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 40:1, 2-17, DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2010.00276.x In short, ancient square rigged vessels that traded n the Mediterranean in classical times could sail to windward – poor windward performance was more to do with hull shape and these varied in efficiency at any point in time in that period (and, incidentally, in more modern times).
(3) Mediterranean and Baltic sub-section (incidentally, very odd grouping of two regions with very different histories)
"Fore-and-aft sails started appearing on sailing vessels in the Mediterranean ca.1200 AD"
This is more utter nonsense. Can someone with access to the cited source (A Short History of the Sailing Ship by Romola Anderson and R. C. Anderson) check whether it actually is in the reference given – if so, that source is highly questionable. The spritsail (i.e. the quadrilateral fore and aft sail supported by a diagonal sprit that went from low down on the mast to the peak of the sail) was present in classical Roman times. Casson is a good source for this, but you will find it in other sources.
(4) Features section:Hull
"Starting in the mid-19th century, iron was used first for the hull structure and later for its watertight sheathing"
What is the intent of the last part of that sentence? I strongly suspect that an editor has written something they do not intend, as I have read the cited source and am pretty sure it says nothing of the kind. We do, of course, have steel framed hulls which were planked with wood (composite construction). We also have copper sheathing. Not sure how the quoted part of the article relates to that.
There is probably a lot more to add to this. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 20:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The source added by User:GwydionM in [1] does not solve the problem. The cited source does not mention paddling, nor is there anything on the bipod mast. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 12:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sailing ship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Any takers for a History entry here? Was doing some research for the technology page and no joy . . . When did we learn to sail?
Rossfi 00:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
In the current article, the first picture shows a sailing boat, the second shows a ship, but it's under auxillary power (not anchored, check the bow wake). Both of these should be replaced with ships under sail.-- J Clear 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Oy. Both photos are not ships. They are yachts. The bottom one is a ketch. We need a picture of an actual ship, as in a ship as opposed to a yacht, a ship as opposed to a sloop of war, a ship as opposed to a schooner, a ship of the line. There are various definitions of "ship." I think we should get an unambiguous ship picture. I have a photo I took of the Lady Washington drifting in a calm, but it is a pretty minimal "ship" and it would be nice to get a ship actually sailing. Something like that painting of the Cutty Sark with all its stunsails out. I'm worried about the tackling drawing. I saw it a few weeks ago in a book, and I can't swear it was out of copyright. I also found this here picture, but the sails are droopy. Mrees1997 19:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I cut the two yachts out and put in this picture: . Mrees1997 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added a mergeto tag to Sailboat pointing to here. Actually I'm not terribly bothered which way it moves, just my POV that it should go this direction. At least this article is part of a template. The two articles are quite different but I don't think we need both. Its very similar territory and there is no great differentiation between the 2 concepts. Opinions and suggestions please ? Frelke 07:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
No Merge, These articles could be edited better in conjunction to separate out the various points which should be in either place. Though the definitions can get a touch muddy, there are generally accepted differences between boats and ships.
Crocadillion 19:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Take a minute to read the comments at Talk:Sailing#Re-write effort -- non how-to et seq. Some of us are working on re-organizing the sailing-related articles. See if you agree with our approach and give us some help. Mrees1997 20:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It is requested that a vehicle diagram or diagrams be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the
Graphic Lab. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. |
This appears to be the master article for this template:
It would benefit from a diagram showing the various parts listed in the template. Image:Tackling.png has on the order of a hundred elements listed, but has no legend. -- Beland 02:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason not to give this article a more appropriate name? "Sailing vessel," perhaps? Sure, "sailing ship" has more Google hits, but as soon as you get into serious discussion of sailing vessels and rigs, calling things ships which are not ships is just confusing. I would indeed suggest that sailing ship redirect to this article, and not to full rigged ship, because most people searching that term are probably looking for this information. But that's no reason to assail them with muddy terminology.
I don't like the title "Sailing vessel" either, since we'd be arbitrarily excluding small boats, pleasure craft, ice boats, etc. But I can't think of a better name, perhaps because I don't actually know what this article is about. Large sailing vessels? Traditional sailing vessels? Merchant/military/working sailing vessels? The history of non-recreational sailing? Western sailing vessels of the Age of Sail and their replicas? Yes, I'm nitpicking, but I do think we should spell out the exact purpose of this article, both to figure out a possible new title and to more clearly differentiate it from sailboat. -- Fullobeans ( talk) 20:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
JUNK is defined as a lug-rigged sailing vessel.
LUGGER is defined as a vessel with at least two masts carrying lug-sails.
What is that? Nowhere is LUG-SAIL defined or described. Lug rigging is not in the sail-plan diagrams either, though those were very informative. A link to the description in another article might be the way to go. 98.200.150.6 ( talk) 14:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I happened upon this page and was reading through it when I came upon a very confusing phrase at the end of the introduction:
"Large sailing vessels that are not ship rigged may be more appropriately called boats."
I am not familiar with the subject, but the phrase "ship rigged" cause me a great deal of confusion. I went back over the introduction again and found no reference, implication, or definition that would aid in interpreting the author's meaning. Possibly it is a typo, in which case it needs correction. It could be a true statement in which case their needs to be an explanation of what it means, either earlier in the text or right at that point. In either case my knowledge of the subject is inadequate and someone else who is better informed should make the changes. Thank you to anyone who corrects this. Sonzaisuru ( talk) 22:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
(This discussion is transcluded at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sailing and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships User:HopsonRoad 10:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC))
I added
caïque here yesterday, which was reverted as the "article says it is a boat, not a ship".
That's fair enough, but the list also has entries for
Longship,
Lugger,
Luzzu,
Tjotter,
Koch (boat),
Yacht and
a Polynesian outrigger canoe. They are all about the same size, they all have sail plans, and they are all described interchangeably as boats, ships, or simply vessels.
So, are we in need of some criteria for inclusion here? The term “ship” is notoriously imprecise; what should be in, and what out?
Moonraker12 (
talk) 16:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I propose to bring the substance of Windjammer here, because "Windjammer" is a colloquialism, not a class of ship, as is discussed at Talk:Windjammer. I further feel that it would improve this fairly sketchy article. HopsonRoad ( talk) 13:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I can see your level of disappointment, Broichmore, and I am prepared to mitigate any problems that I may have created, subject to input from other editors. I don't have an axe to grind, regarding the title. However, other editors pointed out ( here and here) that the term, "windjammer", applies to just about any kind of sailing ship. In the US state of Maine, windjammers are commonly thought of as schooners. The term came about, not as a way to distinguish a type of ship, but as a perjorative term, like "jalopy", applicable to the ships that still were under sail in the age of steam and extended to those who were consigned to sail them. Therefore, it seemed that the material describing windjammers was best provided at "sailing ship".
The ships described in the Windjammer article were, as far as I could see, iron (and steel) hulled. In looking at the literature for ships of the size described here, I didn't find any examples of wooden or composite ships, just a preponderance of iron ships; that's how I came to conclude that material in this article could stand on its own.
Regarding the state of Project Ships, I agree that it's in relatively good shape. It's actually articles having to do with sailing that have many warning templates about references and are poorly written. You can see from my user page that I have rewritten some of them.
As to a resolution, we should follow up on your concern that I was editing against consensus (although I believe that I was editing, consistent with consensus) by leaving an invitation at the Talk pages of editors that have shown an interest in this and related topics, inviting them to the conversation. (You were the only one to respond from my posting at Project Ships.) I plan to do that for our discussion at Talk:Sailing ship#Scope?, which I'll leave an example of at your Talk page. Perhaps you could undertake the same, regarding the article in question (now Iron-hulled sailing ship). If the consensus results in a different outcome, I'm happy to help implement it. I hope that we can leave you satisfied with the outcome, even if it doesn't conform to one or the other of our thought processes. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 12:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Update: I have provided a place to reconsider the title change in question at: Talk:Iron-hulled sailing ship#Reconsider? for you to direct further discussion to. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 15:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Another issue is scope. Is this article primarily about western sailing ships? To what extent should it include junks and dhows? Are they large enough to be considered "ships"? Clearly, at one point they were among the larger vessels sailing in their regions. They should have at least brief mention, here. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 13:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Here's a possible outline:
Sincerely, HopsonRoad ( talk) 02:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
References
Does anybody know how the Gleitschienenrack and Tonnenrack a called in english... Greetings-- Mr.Lovecraft ( talk) 16:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Where did we get the information on a ship gender identity and how do we know it’s not male? Seems like a lot of sexism here with all these female ships. 50.76.14.241 ( talk) 23:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
This is an aide-mémoire for some of the problems with this article, but is also here so that others can comment.
(1) The History section dives straight in to talking about the Age of Discovery without making clear that this is within the European tradition of maritime technology.
(2) History, subsection Before 1700:
"Initially sails provided supplementary power to ships with oars, because the sails were not designed to sail to windward."
Beyond being unreferenced, this is utter nonsense. Sail has been a prime method of propulsion of ships and boats since about 3000 BC. There is clear archaeological and written evidence of this. Even galleys (which are a special case) would use sail whenever possible.
As for the "sails not designed to go to windward" – to be fair to the editor who wrote this, many academics have made this assumption, without any evidence to support it – but more recently this is pretty much refuted by research such as Julian Whitewright (2011) The Potential Performance of Ancient Mediterranean Sailing Rigs, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 40:1, 2-17, DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2010.00276.x In short, ancient square rigged vessels that traded n the Mediterranean in classical times could sail to windward – poor windward performance was more to do with hull shape and these varied in efficiency at any point in time in that period (and, incidentally, in more modern times).
(3) Mediterranean and Baltic sub-section (incidentally, very odd grouping of two regions with very different histories)
"Fore-and-aft sails started appearing on sailing vessels in the Mediterranean ca.1200 AD"
This is more utter nonsense. Can someone with access to the cited source (A Short History of the Sailing Ship by Romola Anderson and R. C. Anderson) check whether it actually is in the reference given – if so, that source is highly questionable. The spritsail (i.e. the quadrilateral fore and aft sail supported by a diagonal sprit that went from low down on the mast to the peak of the sail) was present in classical Roman times. Casson is a good source for this, but you will find it in other sources.
(4) Features section:Hull
"Starting in the mid-19th century, iron was used first for the hull structure and later for its watertight sheathing"
What is the intent of the last part of that sentence? I strongly suspect that an editor has written something they do not intend, as I have read the cited source and am pretty sure it says nothing of the kind. We do, of course, have steel framed hulls which were planked with wood (composite construction). We also have copper sheathing. Not sure how the quoted part of the article relates to that.
There is probably a lot more to add to this. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 20:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The source added by User:GwydionM in [1] does not solve the problem. The cited source does not mention paddling, nor is there anything on the bipod mast. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 12:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)